Tài liệu Role, Play, Art---Collected Experiences of Role-Playing docx

Edited by Thorbiörn Fritzon & Tobias Wrigstad
Role, Play, Art
Collected Experiences
of Role-Playing
Published in Conjunction with the
10th Knutpunkt Convention
Role, Play, Art
Collected Experiences of Role-Playing
Thorbiörn Fritzon & Tobias Wrigstad (eds.)
April, 
This book is typeset by the editors in L
A
T
E
X using teT
E
X, Emacs and T
E
XShop. The font
is Minion.
The articles are the property of their respective authors.
The book is published by Föreningen Knutpunkt with financial support from Stiftelsen
framtidens kultur. Stockholm, .
PREFACE
“The foremost goal of [this] book is to press ahead, to raise the bar of role-playing.”
This is a quote from the call for papers for this book, in which we called for, among
other things, “Visions and Goals for the Future” and “ Techniques and Best-Practises”.
The way we see it, this book is as a collection of experiences of role-playing, trying
to build a st rong enough understanding of this medium, hobby, art, to facilitate this,
maybe in the next Knutpunkt book. Maybe it is not yet time to press ahead as hard as
we wanted to, but to better understand what it is that we have today, and what makes

it work the way we want it to.
In terms of collecting experiences, Role-playing on the Danish convention scene
has come a long way, much thanks to sites like
alexandria.dk, an Internet movie-
database like web site with scenarios from most role-playing scenarios from the last 
years, and rlyeh.trc.dk, a collection of  Danish convention scenarios, free to down-
load, experience and steal from. There is much to gain from such practise, and we
suspect there is a lot of knowledge to be harvested by going through such a large body
of individual games in a systematic fashion, or even by introducing such a simple thing
as having a standardised form for recording actual play. (On a side-note, there is no
reason why table-top, freeform and larp role-play would not benefit from similar sys-
tems, preferably a cross-country, “cross-scene” collection, that could re-close the gap
between the various forms of role-play once and for all.) The articles in this book
provide shor t cuts into a body of knowledge such as the one mentioned above. They
represent hundreds of hours of playing, reading, thinking and analysing role-playing.
An impor tant goal has been to make the book accessible enough to be read by all
Knutpunkt participants. We have worked to achieve this in two ways. First, we have
kept the book delightfully thin. Second, we have urged the authors to write shorter
rather than longer articles, use accessible style and stay clear of cryptic references and
terms without providing a proper explanation. We believe that we have fulfilled this
goal, and that the articles are generally “readable, inspiring and practically useful”, just
as we stated in our original call for papers.
Technical Notes
The articles are sorted alphabetically on the last name of the first author. The book is
short enough not to need a system of categorisation for the articles. To conserve space,
we collected the references in a single chapter in the back. This should also make it
easier to find.
iii
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Martin Brodén, Olle Jonsson, Markus Montola, Jaakko Stenros,

Anna Westerling and many others for insightful comments, help with editing, reading
and discussing. An especially big thanks to Johanna (Joc) Koljonen for lending us
her exceptional editorial skills. This book is published with financial support from
Stiftelsen framtidens kultur.
Kista, April 
Thorbiörn Fr itzon and Tobias Wrigstad, editors
iv
Contents
 A Short Comment On the Compatibility of Immersion and Narrativism 
Martin Brodén
 Games and Creativity Learning 
Thomas Duus Henriksen
 Interaction Codes—Understanding and Establishing Patterns in Player Im-
provisation 
Eirik Fatland
 The Theatre Connection 
Kristine Flood
 To Live Happily Ever After—Techniques for Ending a Larp 
Ada Fredelius
 The Character, the Player and Their Shared Body 
Tova Gerge & Gabriel Widing
 Testing Larp Theories and Methods–Results of Year Two 
J. Tuomas Harviainen
 With Role-Playing in Mind—A CognitiveAccount ofDecoupled Reality,Iden-
tity and Experience 
Andreas Lieberoth
 Prosopopeia—Playing on the Edge of Reality 
Markus Montola & Staffan Jonsson
v
CONTENTS

 The Ar t of Experience 
Juhana Petter sson
 Persona 
Ryan Rohde Hansen & Maya Krone
 Play is Political 
Johan Söderberg
vi
A Short Comment On the
Compatibility of Immersion and
Narrativism
Martin Brodén
This ar ticle is a (very) brief comment on the compatibility of immersion
and narrativism, spurred on by reading some recent writing s on role-
playing theory by J. Tuomas Harviainen and Andreas Lieberoth. I claim
that immersion is not a question of annihilation of the person behind the
mask or of disguising our surroundings into another reality, but a ques-
tion of finding the flow of the story, invoked in the self as a persona.
. INTRODUCTION
Classic larp theory uses the following model: The self is divided into a person and a
persona. The person is the participant, the persona the role. In classic larp theory, two
polarities often emerge, immersion and narrativism. According to immersionists, the
self should not experience the person at all. The persona exists for the session only,
and it is through imagination alone that the persona can stay in existence. According
to narrativists, the persona is the interface to the story, a somewhat abstract term that
tries to reference the existence of something that is happening between the participants
but is still in some way outside of ordinary reality.
In his article Defining the In-Game State: A Field Study on Player Perceptions of
“Self” during Live-action Role-play [], Harviainen suggests a third possibility which
he calls “perikhoresis” and which, according to Harviavinen’s own definition, “pre-
sumes that character and player are complete, individual selves that exist in a state of

reciprocal interpretation”, which would make sense in classic larp theory.
Analysing his statistical material, Harviainen comes upon a paradox while exam-
ining the “type two player”, a type of player characterised by an interest in the narrative

On the Compatibility of Immersion and Narrativism Martin Brodén
assumptions and with a theatrical view of the game: “What is extremely interesting is
that a small correlation [ ] exists with this player type and experiencing character-
reflexive behaviour, which is normally perceived as one of the hallmar ks of immer-
sionist play.” In other words, there is a kind of player that finds it possible to improvise
in character and yet do this in accordance of some external process that we may call
story. If classic larp theory fails to explain why this is possible, per haps looking at the
alternative might help?
. COGNITIVE ROLE THEORY
Having had the opportunity to review Lieberoth’s article in this book, With Role-
Playing in Mind—A Cognitive Account of Decoupled Reality, Identity and Experience
[Ed. Included on p.  in this book] I can refer to it as an alternative model of the self
during larp. My interpretation of Lieberoth is that the self has, amongst other things,
two tools applicable in larp: theory of mind, that is, the self understanding the existence
of separ ate selves in other people, fundamental in understanding a diegesis, and sim-
ulation theory, that is, the possibility of the brain to process thoughts about imagined
sequences of events as if they were real, fundamental in imagining alternate realities.
In addition to the before-mentioned, Harviainen also talks about immersive dis-
turbances: “All information that comes from unwelcome sources [ ] breaks the con-
tinuity of play and forces the game participant into conflict.” If immersion is indeed
a process experienced by the self, what constitutes a break in that continuity would be
different to different styles of players. Thus, immersion is not a question of annihi-
lation of the person behind the mask or of disguising our surroundings into another
reality, it is a question of finding the flow of the story, invoked in the self as a persona.
. CONCLUSION
In my mind, no matter what happens in your head, you will still be you. You may

perceive yourself as having an identity other than what you usually have and that feel-
ing may be sincere and intense—this is immersion—but to the other participants, you
might be the same as always.

Games and Creativity Learning
Thomas Duus Henriksen
Learning games are facing a new challenge if it is to meet the educational
demand for creativity training. In the article, it is argued that reflection
is the key to teach creativity, and that we have to reconsider our current
approach to creating educational role-playing games in order to meet this
demand. The article presents a number of challenges to accomplishing
this, as well as a number of tools for designing and using creativity facili-
tating games.
. INTRODUCTION
It has been a while since focus moved from teaching fac ts to facilitating processual

knowledge within the Danish educational system. The system is slowly complying
with this change, but is now facing a new challenge: Teaching creativity. This new
challenge is a product of the threats that the globalisation constitutes to the Western
nations. The question on what our future source of income should be has been nagging
political and economical thinkers, and the only answer they have been able to come up
with so far, is creativity and innovation. Question is how we are going to integrate this
into our current schooling system.
Being creative today is basically about being able to use knowledge across contexts,
applying knowledge successfully to contexts for which it wasn’t meant (see Seltzer and
Bentley []). According to economist Richard Florida [], most inventions today are
the result of creative application of existing knowledge and technology to new prob-
lems. Such deliber ate developments and applications are what we today call innova-
tion.
In order to teach creative thinking, we must learning and train to use our knowl-

edge cross-contexutally, meaning that we have to think outside the topics and boxes
that our knowledge normally is organised in. We also have to accept that learning not

Processual knowledge refers to knowledge on how to do something, rather than knowing w hat.

Games and Creativity Learning Thomas Duus Henriksen
only takes place in schools, but in society as a whole, and the modus  way of thinking
knowledge, as something not restricted to universities, but as something that exists
between people everywhere in society (STL-Group []). In order to facilitate the cre-
ative thinking, we must seek to employ a reflective approach to thinking, generating
ideas and evaluating them, and this seems to be a hard nut to crack for the existing
school structure.
Question is if games can help the school system to comply with this challenge, and
it seems likely that they might. In order to participate in a role-play, one must explore
and adapt to the challenges presented by the game context. This process is similar to
the process of learning [], as it requires the lear ner to examine a given problem and
adapt to it, which again isn’t too far from the process of creatively applying knowledge
from one context to another. In order to increase the effectiveness of the application,
several learning theorist have stated the importance of reflective thinking as a crucial
factor (see for example Bateson [
]). Reflection is seen as a mean for transferring
knowledge across contexts, thereby forming the basis for the creative application of
knowledge onto new problems, and games clearly have a potential for meeting this
purpose. It is therefore relevant to investigate what challenges such objectives places
onto the designers of learning games, and how they can be overcomed.
In order to use games for facilitating a reflective way of thinking, it is necessary
first to understand games as a learning activity. Due to the fact that we are not try-
ing to integrate the participant into an established context (due to the fact that we are
trying to create creative application of knowledge), it seems insufficient to base such
understanding on a prac tice orientated approach to game based learning (see Henrik-

sen []). The radical constructivist approach to thinking and learning is interesting,
as it manages to grasp those individual constructions, which the game experience is all
about.
To address the challenges this task proposes to the leisure orientated approach to
learning games, a constructivist approach is applied, tapping into the use and con-
sequences of assimilative and accommodative learning. The issue of perturbation is
addressed as a proposal on how to use the game based process for developmental pur-
poses. Finally, question on how games should aim to motivate par ticipation in the
learning process, and how this affects the development of reflective thinking. In order
to bridge the game-based learning process to the constructivist thinking, it is necessary
to introduce some of its key elements.

Thomas Duus Henriksen Games and Creativity Learning
. A RADICAL CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO
LEARNING
The main issue of the constructivist thinking is the claim that we do not have objective
access to the world, stating that we each for ourselves construct our own way of under-
standing and perceiving the world. This implies accepting the materialistic statement
that reality exists independently on how we perceive it, but also that we do not have
any objective means of perceiving it, only our own subjective understanding. This
understanding creates a major epistemological

problem, as it denies the existence of
objective knowledge. Piaget’s constructivism tries to grasp this point, as it denies the
existence of objective knowledge, stating all knowledge as constructed by its possessor,
and that the quality of knowledge is dependent on viability (see von Glasersfeld []).
Instead of seeing learning as an acquisition of objective facts, knowledge is seen as
a personal tome of knowledge and actions, which have proved themselves useful and
viable under specific circumstances. Through the concept of viability, knowledge is
seen as context specific (or situated) and temporary, “. . .relative to a context of goals

and purposes” [, p. ]. Knowing that a game based learning process is based upon el-
ements of fic tion, simplifications and of ten also added motivational drivers. The con-
cept of viability is quite descriptive to the benefit of a learning game, as it only has an
immediate relevance to the game itself. An often addressed question here is w hether
this knowledge is transferable or viable outside the game. This classical concept of
thinking knowledge as transferable has been challenged by the situated approach to
knowledge, proposed by Lave []. By accepting the ultimate statement of the sit-
uated approach, stating that knowledge is context-bound, the foundation for using
learning games would be totally undermined (alongside schools). The solution to this
must be to acknowledge that knowledge may have a cross-contextual viability, as well
as accepting the fact that this transfer is not an automatic process, but a question of
reconstructing knowledge to attain viability to other situations.
. CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE
By accepting the notion of constructivism, it becomes relevant to address the viability
of communicated knowledge in a learning situation, as the communication is based
on constructions and re-constructions. The chain of knowledge in a learning situation

Epistemology refers to the philosophy of knowing, addressing the way we understand the concept of
knowledge, mainly concepts of truth and belief.

Games and Creativity Learning Thomas Duus Henriksen
can be viewed as several steps of construction based on a material reality. This can be
illustrated as the following:
Materialistic
Reality
Scientific
Interpretation
Teachers
Construction
Leamer's

Interpretation
For example The laws of Newton: Let us assume that grav ity exists in reality. This
phenomenon is interpretated by a sc ientist (Newton), who defines his theory. This theory
is then interpretated by a teacher, who teaches the laws to a student, who constructs his
own interpretation.
A similar process is seen with learning games, as the game designer interpretates a
phenomenon, which he designs a game from. By simulating a practice through the use
of fiction, a validity issue needs to be addressed [
, ]. By accepting the constructivist
approach to knowledge, the validity issue becomes even larger. A way of reducing it
may be to reduce the number of interpretative steps away from reality, and to focus
on observable, simulative processes, rather than trying to communicate both facts and
processes.
An easily overlooked result of a learning environment is the benefit spread in the
individual benefit. This issue is addressed by the constructivist perspective, as it rec-
ognizes that the produced benefit is the result of an individual interpretative process.
According to Piaget, this produced benefit is the result of the two interacting learning
processes assimilation and accommodation [], of which the accommodative is the
most relevant when investigating the benefit and use of learning games.
. ASSIMILATION AND A CCOMMODATION IN LEARN-
ING GAMES
According to Piaget, the participant’s existing knowledge is the crucial factor in the
learning process, as it determines how and what is learned, as well as what is over-
looked and therefore discarded and how the participant is affected. This is usually
understood through the processes of assimilation and accommodation.
. ASSIMILATION
The term assimilation is originally borrowed from biology, where it describes how
an object is processed by a system. A common misinterpretation is that the object is

Thomas Duus Henriksen Games and Creativity Learning

converted to fit into the system. Rather the term covers a process, in which only parts
of the object is recognized by the system, and where the system only processes those
parts into its system [].
Such process is concerned with adding facts to existing mental structures or schem-
atas, only letting the participant benefit from those parts which are recognised to fit
into the participant’s existing knowledge. It is concerned with what the participant
knows, rather than on how it is used or understood. Such knowledge is subject to in-
terpretation and re-interpretation according to the participant’s overall understanding
or interpretative frame.
A very easy, but not very effective way of designing learning games, is to fill a game
with educational material (for example historical facts), w hich the participant can ex-
plore during the game. This is often more fun than effective, as the game structure
does not guarantee that all students meet or notices all points (this reliability issues are
discussed in previous work []). Another limitation to this design is the general va-
lidity problem presented by inductive learning designs, as the participant often lacks
an external anchor point for his constructed understanding []. A more beneficial
design seems to be a g ame, which allows the participants to reconstruct their existing
knowledge, thereby creating a coherent or new understanding of a set of knowledge
elements. Such games are called process-games (in contrast to fact-g ames), according
to their focus.
The primary argument against basing game based learning on assimilation is that
we already have proven methods for teaching facts, and that doesn’t cal l for a method
where facts are mixed with fic tion and similar game mechanical elements. Another
argument is based upon the presence of freedom of choice in a game; according to
the circle model [], a game consists of a number of potential situations, from which
only a limited number are realised though the gaming experience. A consequence
from this is that only a limited part of the game’s knowledge actually is perceived by
the participant, thereby loosing the remains. As this forms the base for a huge variance
in the learning benefit, such practice is not recommendable.
. ACCOMMODATION

Accommodation is often viewed as the opposite of assimilation, giving a rather mis-
leading view on the process. The accommodative process describes the process of
changing one’s personal interpretative frame when it has become perturbated with
knowledge that renders it invalid []. This process is of ten frustrating, and we tend
to hold back in order to prevent the load from tipping. But that is actually what the

Games and Creativity Learning Thomas Duus Henriksen
game should attempt to facilitate under safe conditions. Stepping into a learning game
is not an accommodative learning process; when we play, we accept a temporary, al-
ready invalidated discourse for interpretating our immediate perception. Not until our
personal understanding of reality becomes so challenged that it evolves do we have an
accommodative learning process.
The process of accommodation is somewhat more interesting to learning games
than assimilation, and can easily be stated as the purpose of learning games. Games
have the ability to give us access to an otherwise inaccessible situation. According to
the structure model [
], role-play allows the participant to take on a different p er-
spective, creating a whole new approach to a situation. This can be highly profitable
to a learning process, as it allows simulated practice participation to be brought into
the classroom [] (see for example Medicon Game or Homicide). This opportunity
to try participating in and experimenting with knowledge across contexts creates op-
portunities for restruc turing existing knowledge into action schemes, or into creative
applications.
The main argument for using learning games lies in their ability to create accom-
modative learning processes. Whereas we have plenty of methods for creating pro-
cesses based on assimilation, the Danish school system is seriously lacking methods
for rocking its students existing structures of knowledge. This gives learning games
a window of opportunity to fulfil a specific educational need within the system. And
that might be worth running for, but to fill the need, we have to be able to rock the par-
ticipant’s existing knowledge. The key in doing so is perturbation, which is addressed

below.
. CREATING PERTURBATION THROUGH THE GAME
EXPERIENCE
In order to analyse the game based perturbation process, the interpretative model []
is used for structuring the analysis. The model consists of a left side, illustrating the
participant and the creation of a role-based perspective, whereas the right side illus-
trates the object of the game, as well as the discourse, under which the object is to be
understood during the game.
The left side of the model is relevant to understand the persp ective of the par-
ticipant in the role-play based learning environment. According to the interpretative
model, the character holds the primary and secondary fiction to be used for shaping
the participant’s perspective into that of the role. In a learning setting, the character

Thomas Duus Henriksen Games and Creativity Learning
Participant
Role
Character
Object
Discourse
!
would hold the new perspectives to be tested, and the participant the existing knowl-
edge. Such learning setting can be illustrated as in Model :
Participant
Role
Character
Real world
Real (p)
Real (r)
Real (c)
Game world

Game (p)
Game (r)
Game (c)
Reflection
Reflect (p)
Reflect (r)
Reflect (c)
If we explore the content of the par ticipant (p), the role (r) and the character (c)
across three settings: ) the participant’s daily practice (where he usually encounters
a given problem), ) a game world (game based learning setting), and ) a reflective
sphere (where the participant reflects on the differences between the real and the game
setting),  elements of situated knowledge appears. These elements are interesting
for exploring the viability of knowledge in and across practices, whereas the reflective
sphere is seen as the transfer-facilitating link between the two previous.
In the Real world setting, the participant is likely to find his perspectives adequate
(Real-P), whereas the introduced perspectives are likely to be seen as too cumbersome
(Real-C) (remember that a character merely is a given set of perspec tives and knowl-
edge). Merely placing the participant within a game world, in which the participant’s
knowledge is proven insufficient (Game-P), and the (Game-P) successful, is most likely
to be perceived as manipulative and result in two different outcomes; either the learn-
ing environment as a whole is rejected, or the perturbation is rationalised away by at-
tributing the (Game-P) insufficiency to contextual drivers. The combined perspective
(Game-R) may result in ownership of eventual successes achieved in the game world,
generating acknowledgement of the character’s perspectives. The task for the reflective

Games and Creativity Learning Thomas Duus Henriksen
process is then to evaluate on the viability of the perspectives of the participant, char-
acter and role across the contexts, eventually creating sufficient perturbation leading
to a change in (Real-P) behaviour.
What happens during such process is basically allowing the participant to experi-

ment with an alternative and temporary way of experiencing the world []. During
the game, the fictional element is used for easing the transition from one understand-
ing to another. The game world remains fictional, which means that it is based on
perspectives applied to practice, rather than derived from it. It is never viewed as a
representation of the real world. The perturbation arises in the participant’s reflection
of the three levels. The learning benefit thereby becomes an offer, rather than some-
thing manipulated into the otherwise volunteer par ticipant. By basing the learning
process on reflection, a more ethical approach is allowed by letting the participant cre-
ate his own understanding, rather than taking the essentialist approach by dictating
what the participants should learn.
There is an ongoing discussion on whether students should be taught what is es-
sential to them according to society, or if they should be allowed a more existentialistic
approach, letting them decide for themselves what they want to learn. Such questions
are usually outside the game-designers competence, as learning game designers often
are issued with very clear learning objectives (referring to how, rather than what). This
expands the game-design challenge from not only encouraging reflection, to also being
able to shape and direct the content of the reflection.
. AIMS FOR THE GAME BASED LEARNING PROCESS
One might argue that if we allow the participant to create an understanding, based
on his own constructions alone, we risk creating idiosyncratic knowledge, which only
is viable to him. In order to avoid such solipsist

“anything goes” approach, we need
tools for directing the par ticipant’s constructions towards something that is socially
acceptable.
The major difference between Piaget’s radical constructivism and Vygotsky’s cultu-
ral-historic approach is a question of where knowledge is created; in the head of the
participant, or between the participants. According to Cobb [
], the two perspectives
can be understood as separate contributions to understanding the learning process; a

cognitive and a social-anthropological. Where as the first is useful for understanding

Solipsism refers to the epistemological belief that the only thing one can be certain of is one’s own
consciousness.

Thomas Duus Henriksen Games and Creativity Learning
the focus for learning games, the latter is relevant for solving the intriguing problem
of reflection in the learning process.
. THE PROBLEM OF MOTIVATION AND REFLECTION
Games have often been adapted into educational settings due to their means of moti-
vation. This has throughout the past years resulted in the concept of edutainment [],
which with diverse success attempts to combine the fun of games with the benefit of
learning (see also Egenfeldt-Nielsen [
]). Educational role-play is often being thought
of as an entertaining break-away from traditional teaching, a perspective I find under-
mining for the concept of learning games. The main purpose of a learning environ-
ment is to facilitate learning, not to entertain.
However, games are being legitimated in the educational setting as a motivator in
order to create engagement in the learning process. Along with the growing interest
in creating a flow experiences in learning (see Csikszentmihalyi [, ] and Ander-
sen []), games have been looked upon as a mean for doing so, which has provided in-
teresting perspectives on the connection between facilitating reflection/creativity and
pleasurable learning environments, such as edutainment.
Flow is characterised by a pleasurable, emotional state, where time passes by and
the participant experiences a driving feeling of success []. Among the interesting
conditions for the experience are the experience that one’s skills are adequate to cope
with challenges at hand, in a goal directed and r ule bound (rule obvious) setting, and
that the participant is allowed to focus on the task at hand [, p. ].
There should be little doubt that role-playing games can create such flow experi-
ence (as well as boredom and anxiety), but the question is whether it is beneficial to

the reflection and learning process.
The main problem in creating flow is that it is not normally compatible with the
process of accommodation. As the process of flow narrows the participant’s attention
down to focussing on a few variables, the experience becomes so immense that the
reflective process required for accommodation is left unaddressed. Flow has often
been presented as beneficial for assimilative learning (see for example Andersen []).
The intuitive, automatic behaviour displayed during flow is often measured as a good
performance, but it is important to keep performance and learning apart when trying
to create a reflective understanding of a topic. Just because a student performs doesn’t
necessarily mean that he understands what he is doing (or is able to do it elsewhere).
Because participants push their skill to the limit, reflection is inhibited during
flow [
], other means for creating this learning process are required. One way is by

Games and Creativity Learning Thomas Duus Henriksen
forcing reflection by using time-outs. This may sound beneficial in a theoretical sense,
but is in practice more likely to give an experience of contrast; the feeling of having
to abandon the pleasant and self-directed flow experience in order to do a forced re-
flective process. To my experience, this contrast creates resistance, both towards the
learning process, and towards the instruction given. This cannot be solved by mak-
ing the game funnier or improving the conditions for flow—this merely increases the
contrast. It seems relevant to explore alternative incentives, which do not contribute to
this contrast. A way of doing so is to abandon the effort to please the participants, and
instead using frustration as the primary driver for creating engagement. In order to
facilitate engagement, the game designer must be able to utilise the desires and needs
of the participant [], and to integrate these into the structure of the learning game.
Another interacting factor to the problem of contrast is where the reflective ele-
ment is placed in the game based learning environment. The model below identifies
four positions in the game based learning environment, where attempts on facilitating
reflection can be made:

Before
1
After
2
Game
4
3
(break)
The four positions each gives their distinctive impact on the learning process;
whereas the first implies an introduction of the game points and objectives, which
in practice reduces the learning game to an example, eliminating the explorative ele-
ment. Placing the reflective process afterwards () is recommendable (see for example
van Ments [
]), but is often overlooked, neglected, or looked upon as including a
separate, game external learning environment. Some facilitators fancy using time-out
or reflection breaks (). The result is a broken game experience, reluctance towards
the instruction to facilitate, and most likely also an unsatisfying result. The ultimate
goal for the game designer must be to create a game, in which the reflective element is
included in the game (), independent on game-external initiatives.
Game-design at its best manages to implement the learning objective into the game
mechanics, thereby encouraging a reflection-in-action process. This does, however
neither guarantee learning nor the ability to apply the benefit outside the learning
environment. Alternatively, the reflective process can be integrated into a debriefing,

Thomas Duus Henriksen Games and Creativity Learning
where the reflective process is facilitated along with a decontextualisation of content
and an explicitation of points from fictive elements. Such debriefing is quite context-
specific, for example through cultural bias [], which merely creates an additional
level of construction to the produced benefit.
. THE HISTORIC-CULTURAL CO-CREATION OF

KNOWLEDGE
An interesting, but not very far fetched method for facilitating in-game reflection is
offered by Vygotsky and his cultural-historical approach to learning. In contrast to
Piaget, Vygotsky believed that knowledge could be constructed between individuals
through the negotiation of the social setting. This particular difference has been de-
bated thoroughly, as some claims the two are incompatible (see Lerman []), whereas
others saw them as integrateable (see for example Steffe and Thompson []). Rather
than integrating the two as theories, Cobb [] suggests an integrative use of the two
in order to achieve a better understanding of practice.
By collectively exploring the social setting, its norms, values, means and believes,
the individuals could collectively negotiate the setting in order to adapt, participate
and evaluate according to the setting. By doing so group wise, grounds for evolving
a far more adaptive understanding than they could have achieved indiv idually. My
point is not to reinvent group work, but rather to state its potentials within the area of
learning games.
If we return to the interpretative model, the right side consists of the game ob-
ject and the discourse for interpretation. A common practice when designing learning
games is to create challenge by issuing the participants with a too-short discourse,
only giving them a partial understanding of the game object, leaving the rest for ex-
ploration. While doing so, participants must negotiate meaning, values and other
relevant characteristics in order to understand the object. How this is done practically
is a matter of game design, but the facilitation of a reflective process can be fur thered
by dividing the participants into basis-groups. By participating in groups with co-
herent, supplementing goals, the reflective process is more likely to occur than if the
participants were on their own.

Games and Creativity Learning Thomas Duus Henriksen
. VALIDITY ISSUES IN LEARNING GAMES
The issue of validity is a well-known problem in learning games. As stated previously,
mixing fac t and fiction constitutes a problem for the participant [], as well the con-

structivist point that we teach the interpretations we find to be viable. What is viable
in the game might not be viable when confronted with the mater ialistic reality.
One might think of two different approaches to creativity teaching learning games;
through closed and open frames:
The closed frame The closed frame utilises the mechanics above, presenting the par-
ticipant with context and discursive knowledge to act within it, creating a re-
flection on the difference between the game and the real world situation. Such
approach utilises a fictional frame, a diegesis, stating how the participant should
act within the game, encouraging them to stick to it.
The open frame The open frame uses similar mechanics in creating a fictional frame,
but instead of telling the participants to stick to their characters, they are en-
couraged to draw upon knowledge, which is not part of the frame. Reflection
here is created by encouraging the participants to ‘cheat’ and bring in solutions
and knowledge from their personal repertoire, thus allow ing a wider array of
solutions to the game.
An open framed approach clearly places the game design under much more stress,
as it requires it to being able to respond to more or less predictable solutions from the
participants. Right or wrong becomes a question of viability, rather than the game de-
signers planned outcome. Still, tools are needed to assist the participants in navigating
past the holes where viability in the game design differs from viability in the reality.
To my experience, players like to test the validity of the game, especially on where
it breaks. Games are never complete representations of reality, and it is always a chal-
lenge to the game designer to make the participants run around in circles, thereby
keeping them on safe grounds. Going through the ice allows the participant to dismiss
the game experience as a whole, thereby preventing this experience from perturbating
the participant’s way of thinking. Caution should be taken when using open ended
learning games that do not make the participants run around in circles.

Thomas Duus Henriksen Games and Creativity Learning
. CHALLENGE TO THE LEISURE-ORIENTED

APPROACH
The previously stated aim, to create a learning environment that facilitates reflection
in order to further the degree of knowledge penetration between contexts, is obvi-
ously a prerequisite for teaching creativity. Without the incentive to apply knowledge
cross-contextually, the creative thinking or application is unlikely to occur. If the game
can be utilised to facilitate cross-contextual application, this innovative application of
role-play technology onto the learning setting can be used as an educational tool for
teaching creative thinking through reflection. This might prove to be the launch pad
that game based learning has been looking for to get seriously into the market for
learning.
Such use of role-play constitutes a major challenge to game designers; in leisure
role-play design, the designers often use a narrow fictional frame or universe, using a
lot of secondary fiction to make a tight frame. Such design is often used to prevent the
participants to draw upon their existing knowledge, thus sticking to the means of the
frame. While trying to teach creativity by encouraging the participants to draw upon
their existing knowledge, this constitutes a major challenge to the game, which must
be designed to meet and react to a much wider array of actions and interpretations.
Even though some games already do this, a mechanic for handling such loose ends
must be developed.
Another challenge is constituted by the shift from entertainment to learning; in-
stead of seeking to entertain the participants, the learning-game designer must utilise
other means for creating participation in order to facilitate the reflective stance re-
quired to teach creativity. It is therefore a necessary qualification for the learning-game
designer to be able to tap into the participants needs, desires and frustration in order
to find alternative, non-entertaining means for facilitating participation.
All together, the role-play based learning environment seems to hold the potential
to teach creativity, which in Denmark is a sought after competence. Radical changes
to our normal approach to understanding game design is required, but the challenges
seems manageable if adequate attention is invested in handling creative in-game use of
off-game knowledge, to finding entertainment-alternative incentives for participation,

and in applying the game-based learning environment to teaching processual, rather
than factual knowledge.

Games and Creativity Learning Thomas Duus Henriksen

Interaction
Codes—Understanding and
Establishing Patterns in Player
Improvisation
Eirik Fatland
Some, not all, of player improvisation at live role-playing games follows
identifiable patterns of similar responses to similar situations. While not
all of these patterns can be easily explained, many of them apparently
originate in genre conventions, role-playing tradition, and w ith explicit
and implicit communication before and during a larp. A set of improvi-
sation patterns and their establishing sources can be described collectively
as an “interaction code”—a network of related patterns originating from
related sources.
The model of interaction codes is both an analytical tool and a source
of larp design methods—by understanding this aspect of role-play be-
haviour, we are also able to better control or influence such behaviour.
While the players often originate interaction codes, they may also be in-
tentionally established by a larpwright. Two groups of methods are dis-
cussed in the article—derivation from references, and larpwright author-
ship. The first group taps into works (literature, cinema) and situations
with which the players are familiar, while the latter group uses more direct
approaches to encourage improvisation patterns.

Interaction Codes Eirik Fatland
. INTRODUCTION

Imagine a larp that is marketed as “Science Fiction”, featuring characters who are the
staff of a large military space ship, but without any further context supplied.
Imagine further that the majority of players at this larp are fans of Star Trek, and
approach the larp looking for the familiar thrill of the series. In this case they are likely
to do a number of things derived from that series—they are likely to speak in a manner
similar to that of Star Trek scripts (“Beam me up, Scotty!”), to assume their characters
are the “good guys” and that non-player characters w ho oppose them are “bad guys”,
and to play their characters as Star Trek stereoty pes. They are likely to attempt to make
moral choices in conflicts, to be tolerant of aliens, to be friend ly, optimistic and jovial
towards each other, and use a large degree of casual (body-)language. And they are
likely to remain optimistic and jovial even in the face of grave danger—af ter all, the
typical Star Trek story ends well.
If, on the other hand, we imagine that the players’ associations to a military organ-
isation in “Science Fiction” der ive from authoritarian dystopias—like Orwell’s Nine-
teen Eighty-Four, the Empire of Star Wars IV-VI or the “peacekeepers” of space opera
Farscape—the y are likely to approach the larp in a very different way. Their characters
may as well be the “bad guys”. They are likely to deal out harsh punishments to their
inferiors, and to speak in authoritarian language (“Activate the teleporter, that’s an or-
der!”). They are likely to make immoral decisions in the name of “greater good”, and
to be intolerant of opponents, especially those that look different. They are likely to
treat each other roughly, not shying away from fighting with or even murdering an op-
posing member of the crew, and their characters may become complex examinations
of the personalities of fascism. Since this kind of story usually ends in tradegy, they
may approach the event with a high degree of fatalism.
Of course, these examples are hypothetical. Most larps will be marketed with at
least some references to similar works, or with the larpw right having some knowledge
of what the players will expect. But these examples illustrate how players’ knowledge
and expectations, and their assumptions about how these apply to the larp, impact on
their dramatic improvisation while role-playing. When taken together, such assump-
tions and the patterns they create form what I will call an “interaction code”. The Star

Trek reference, above, forms one interaction code, while the references to militaristic
dystopias form another.
